Review of BPR methodologies

This paper presents the advantages and disadvantages of development a methodological analysis in the context of BPR. It also provides a critique of existing BPR methodologies which erved as a basis for the development of the CONDOR BPR methodology. The paper also presents the main points of the implementation of this methodology to three European construction companies. What can a methodology offer to the BPR dramatics? According to Preece and Peppard (1996), a methodology is simply theory put into practice aiming at dealing with real world situations.According to Valiris and Glykas (1999) a BPR methodology should provide a consistent set of techniques and guidelines which will enable the business process redesigner to reorganise business ctivities and processes in an organisation. The use of a methodology is essential for a number of reasons. First, a methodology provides a means of codifying experience, knowledge and ideas, in a form that not only can be easily applied, unless also can be evaluated and tested. Second, a methodology offers a certain level of organisation, and facilitates planning and monitoring.In BPR initiatives, a methodology enables the organisation, on the one hand, to have a clear picture of its current processes along with their associated problems and, on the other, to design the new state of these processes. In addition, by following a certain methodology, BPR re-engineers have the chance to monitor and evaluate the progress of the re-engineering effort. Third, a methodology enables those who are involved or affected by the BPR to recognise their tasks and clarify their roles.A BPR methodology which is clearly define and explained to those who are leading the BPR work can facilitate the communication between them, and serve as a kind of contract in which all the parties understand their responsibilities and are, therefore, able to monitor the overall process re-engineering progress. Finally, adoption of a methodology allows a s tandard set of mandatory skills to be identified and developed. Key skills required for BPR include process modelling, organisational development techniques, and skills to deal with resistance to change.There are, however, a number of problems related to the use of a methodology. One important reason which explains the reluctance of growth and using methodologies or models in the BPR context is that the widely accepted methodologies are based on how the business processes should change and how the organisation should adapt itself in this change, quite an than on the evaluation of urrent practices and on the codification of successful practical experiences (Simsion, 1994).Moreover, the BPR literature search reveals that there are an increasing number of successful re-engineering implementations and case studies using BPR methodologies. Although each business situation has some unique characteristics, an appropriate methodology will need to allow tor assessment and re-use ot existin g successful approaches and practical experiences. In addition, a methodology hides the danger of restraining creativity and innovation. The latter are crucial elements in he radical thinking during the re-engineering process.By encouraging those who are involved in the reengineering process to comply with the requirements of a given methodology, there is a potential risk of restricting the opportunity of optimising the results according to the level required by the methodology (Simsion,1994). Critique of existing BPR 239 240 In conclusion, there are many advantages and disadvantages regarding the use of a specific methodology or model in the re-engineering initiative. Each perspective demonstrates equally important arguments that affect the organisation.The lternative to using a methodology in an attempt to minimise the negative consequences is not anarchy but a hazard approach tailored to suit the objectives and needs of every organisation or business sector, building on basic p rinciples of planning and monitoring as swell as on previous successful working practices. Critique of existing BPR methodologies and models The are many BPR methodologies and models available, and most of them pursue a similar path and border commonalities in key areas (Butler, 1994).Today, an increasing number of methodologies, models and tools taken from other disciplines re available in the market, claiming that they are suitable for BPR initiatives. Ruessmann et al. (1994) reported the results of their research, claiming that BPR methodologies are based on a synthesis of techniques drawn from other disciplines and methodologies such as soft systems, total quality management (TQM), benchmarking, and organisational development. According to a I-JK BPR methodology survey analysis findings (Archer, 1996), the number of stages involved in BPR approaches varies greatly, despite the fact that they do present key similarities.